Team #7 Geotechnical Report (2)

Genaro Contreras
Geotechnical Master Plan
Company Sponsor: CVL
Group 7
3/20/2015
Spring2015
JOY RANCH HOUSING
COMMUNITY

TEAM 7: GEOTECHNICAL MASTER PLAN
1
JOY RANCH HOUSING COMMUNITY
Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................2
2.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................2
2.1 Proposed Project.......................................................................................................................2
2.2 Site Conditions..........................................................................................................................2
3.0 SITE EXPLORATION ......................................................................................................................3
3.1 Exploratory Borings ..................................................................................................................3
32 Groundwater Table....................................................................................................................3
4.0 SOIL CHARACTERISTICS.................................................................................................................4
4.1 Test Results ..............................................................................................................................4
4.2 Strength and Capacity...............................................................................................................6
5.0 SOIL ISSUES ..................................................................................................................................7
5.1 Collapse....................................................................................................................................8
5.2 Subsidence ...............................................................................................................................8
5.3 Fissures....................................................................................................................................8
5.4 Sulfate......................................................................................................................................8
6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................8
6.1 Footings ...................................................................................................................................8
6.2 Earth Retaining Walls ...............................................................................................................8
6.3 Earthwork ................................................................................................................................8
7.0 SUSTAINABILITY ...........................................................................................................................8
8.0 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................9
APPENDIX A: SCHMERTMANN ANALYSIS..................................................................................... 10-12
APPENDIX B: RETAINING WALL CALCULATIONS............................................................................ 13-15
APPENDIX C: BORING LOG DATA .................................................................................................16-37
APPENDIX D: PROJECT VALIDATION FORM .......................................................................................38

2
Figure 1: Land Use Plan
1.0 Executive Summary
An apparently square, undeveloped area is proposed as the site for a small residential
community, titled Joy Ranch Housing. This land is intended to be divided into 5 main uses:
housing, recreational, commercial, water treatment and educational. Shown below in figure 1 are
the types of land use each parcel in this site is devoted to. Due to the scarcity of information
available concerning the earth conditions thereof, a geotechnical investigation was performed to
properly analyze and evaluate the challenges that could potentially arise from land development
on this site. General site topography and groundwater depth were provided by site visitation and
the Groundwater Site Inventory of the Arizona Department of Water Resources.
Exploratory borings were performed to obtain at least 1 soil sample from each of the 14
parcels. The soil characteristics determined or extrapolated from these samplings were used to
assign or affirm effective use of each subdivision. The incorporation of numerous assumptions
became necessary, as some crucial factors would require further laboratory testing for total
accuracy. Design recommendations for structure footings and earth retaining walls were
provided according to the soil properties and the loads of the planned structures (3,101,400 lb.
for an elementary school building and 157,784 lb. for a pedestrian bridge).
2.0 Introduction:
2.1 Proposed Project: Joy Ranch Housing is a small residential community, spanning
approximately 622.86 acres and divided into 14 parcels of land. The majority of these parcels are
devoted to housing, with both high and low dwelling unit densities, with the remaining ones set
aside for the purposes of wastewater treatment, education, recreation and commercial activity.
Two collector roads intersect at a roundabout towards the northeastern quadrant of the site,
providing access to the rest of the parcels.
The performance of a geotechnical investigation fulfills the requirement of ascertaining
the suitability of the soil concerning land development.
2.2 Site Conditions: The site for Joy Ranch Housing is bound by North 7th Avenue, North
7th Street, West Joy Ranch Road and West Cloud Road, all of which are arterials. No previous
development is evident or recorded. Surrounding establishments include, located to the south,

3
Deer Mountain Elementary and Dove Valley Ranch, approximately two miles to the East. A
smaller fraction of the land surrounding the planned site is developed, with one story homes
lining the roads.
The topography is flat in general, with no apparent hills or earth depreciations, nor
apparent evidence of boulders or cobbles. Elevation slowly decreases from the northern to
southern half, which dictates the flow of the washes. Two major ones flow directly through the
site, one of which is the West Fork Desert Lake Wash and traverses the eastern half of the site.
Surface indicators of the location of these washes include clear lines of trees, which will
necessitate clearing and possible grubbing to make further use of the washes. Other vegetation
includes abundant shrubbery in the southwestern corner. The surrounding area is mountainous.
3.0 Site Exploration:
3.1 Borings: For the purpose of exploring various subsurface conditions throughout the
site, exploratory borings were performed by use of a 6 5/8” hollow stem auger. The locations for
these borings were selected according to the planned parcels. One boring was performed in each
smaller parcel, with two performed in larger ones, such as parcels 5 and 10, to obtain more
reliable averages for the soil characteristics pertaining to a given area. Because the depths of the
logs are approximately 6 feet, they are preliminary. Deeper ones that fall within the range of 10-
15 feet will be required to make reliable foundation recommendations for larger loads.
4.2 Groundwater: Though some moisture was present in the majority of the samples, the
groundwater table is evidently located far below the depth of any exploratory boring for the
pertinent project. Researching of the records kept by the Arizona Department of Water
4 2 1
5
7
6
10
3
11
9
14
8
13
12
Legend
= Boring Location
= ParcelNumber
Figure 2: Boring Map

4
Resources revealed no existing data specifically regarding the pertinent land, affirming that no
previous development has been completed nor attempted. Data from wells at various adjacent
points, monitored as recent as 2010, indicates the depth of the groundwater table to be far below
the range of the infrastructure for Joy Ranch Housing, ranging from 301.2 to 511.6 feet.
Considering this, it is highly unlikely that the groundwater table will pose any difficulties that
need to be figured into the calculations.
4.0 Soil Characteristics
4.1 Test Results: In accordance with the standards of ASTM D2937, the drive-cylinder
test was performed on samples from the boring sites. The simple measurement of sample
cylindrical masses before and after drying enabled the computation of the dry unit weights and
water contents. On the field, visual classification was performed by ASTM D2487 and ASTM
D2488 specifics, producing the descriptions included in the boring logs. Weak cementation was
an abundant characteristic, noted from most of the samples. ASTM C136 standards were
followed for the sieve analysis, showing a predominance of clayey sands, particularly within the
surface strata.
Plasticity was required to determine the quality of strength for each boring location.
ASTM D4318 procedure was followed in identifying the liquid and plastic limits, both of which
are required for the plasticity indices. The results to these are shown in tables 1 and 2. The
separation into 2 tables of data was necessitated by the availability of data for the multiple depths
at which exploratory borings were performed.
Figure 3: Map of Sample Wells
Legend
= Site Border
= Well Location
Top Number = Well Elevation
Bottom Number = Date of Data
Collection

5
Table 1: Laboratory Test Results
Table 2: Soil Classification and Consistency

6
4.2 Strength and Bearing Capacity: In determining strength and capacity characteristics
for the soils within the site, it must be acknowledged that insufficient data has been gathered
from laboratory tests to produce truly accurate quantities. This necessitates assumptions
regarding certain vital factors, based on previously established correlations and standards.
Laboratory results for soil classification were utilized when available, with visual classification
accepted as reasonable approximation for all other cases. The angle of internal friction required
already established value ranges assigned to each soil type. The value used for calculation was
selected in relation to the dry density of the soil. Cohesion was also determined using previous
data based on soil types. The bearing capacity factors were obtained from a chart constructed for
use in conjunction with two common methods for ultimate bearing pressure, and are listed below
in table 3. Furthermore, due to the extensive depth of the groundwater table and the presence of
moisture within the soil samples from the exploratory borings, soil conditions were assumed to
be unsaturated, drained and normally consolidated. The latter two conditions are acceptable for
this preliminary analysis, partially due to the lack of previous land development.
Terzhagi’s method for computing soil bearing capacity was utilized with the footing
dimensions for the different planned structures, applying the standard factor of safety of 2.5. The
results are shown in table 4.
Table 3: Bearing Capacity Factors

7
5.0 Soil Issues
5.1 Subsidence: While data from the site itself is currently unavailable, studies on the
greater Maricopa area from the Hydrology Division of the ADWR reveal that the site does not
fall within the areas of major subsidence, which are outlined below in figure 3.
Table 4: Bearing Capacity
Legend
= Subsidence Zone
= Major Highway
Figure 3: Subsidence Map

8
Because the majority of the area is composed of clayey sands, a considerable amount of
immediate settlement is expected, but consolidation is not anticipated due to the depth of the
groundwater table and overall scarcity of clays.
5.2 Collapse: Parcels 6 and 8, which are intended to serve as the locations for low density
housing and a grocery store respectably, were shown to have collapsible soil. In addition to
potentially exacerbating differential settlement, this issue may be compounded be compounded
by the area’s comparatively high flood rate, as an influx of water is one of the triggers for soil
collapse. Methods for combating this problem are explained under the design recommendations
for footings.
5.3 Fissures: Fissuring is often the result of subsidence. Because the site is not located
within any of the major subsidence zones in Maricopa County, fissuring is not a major concern.
Furthermore, data maps from the ADWR did not identify any nearby areas with a high risk of
fissuring. Though this geological hazard does not pose a problem for this particular case, it is a
common concern for geotechnical engineers. Thus, the reasons for disregarding it are
noteworthy.
5.4 Sulfate: The soil of parcel 2 was shown to have a significantly high sulfate
concentration, at 299 ppm. According to the standards from the Portland Cement Association,
this level of soluble sulfates constitutes a moderate hazard, capable of causing cracks and
disintegration on concrete constructs, including footings.
6.0 DesignRecommendations
6.1 Footings: The spread footings for the homes in both low and high density
housing developments will be square and 3 feet in width, although the soil conditions of parcel 2
necessitate a width of 4 feet to meet, or exceed, an acceptable bearing capacity of 5,000 𝑙𝑏/𝑓𝑡2
.
For parcel 6, the high concentration of soluble sulfates necessitates that any concrete slab
footings be composed of type II concrete, which is resistant to sulfate attack. A 3 foot width is
sufficient for most of the other land use types, except for the two story elementary school
building and the bridges.
A 10 foot wide continuous footing was assumed for the pedestrian bridge, which passes
the design criteria for this type of foundation, including the bearing capacity. The predicted
immediate settlement following construction is well below the allowable total settlement for
bridges, according to table 2.1 of Coduto’s text on foundations. The building from the
elementary school requires 16 spread footings, each 5 feet in width.
6.2 Earth Retaining Walls: Concrete cut-off walls will be constructed below the
pedestrian bridge along the wash between the housing development in parcel 12 and the
recreational park in parcel 10. This is primarily to prevent the issue of scour on the bridge
footings, which could prove severe in the long run, and without a deep foundation. At the least in
the short term, the level of flooding in this wash is not predicted to be high enough to pose an
issue for the adjacent housing development. Parcels 6 and 8 will also require cut-off walls along
the adjacent wash, primarily to prevent soil collapse. These walls will also be composed of type
II concrete to combat damage from soluble sulfates. The other walls will be composed of type I
concrete.

9
The walls themselves will be a total of 16 feet in height, with a toe of 3 feet, a stem of 1.5
feet and a heel of 7 feet. These dimensions are acceptable for the soil conditions of all the walls
due to the common backfill, which will be high quality granular soil. The soil properties will
include a unit weight of 120 𝑙𝑏/𝑓𝑡2
, a friction angle of 30 degrees and no cohesion.
6.3 Earthwork: In addition to the excavation required for the footings of the residential,
commercial and educational structures, the soil at the edge of the washes adjacent to parcels 12,
10, 6 and 8 will be removed as part of the construction of the retaining walls. This will be done
with typical excavators. Scrapers will be used to transport the removed soil, as a different
backfill will be placed behind the walls. Prior to any compaction, the soils will be moisture
conditioned to within 3% of the optimum moisture content, identified during the Proctor tests.
Compaction will increase the density of the soil to approximately 95% of the proctor test results.
7.0 Sustainability
Cells are installed underground, designed to provide additional nutrients to the surrounding soil
to sustain the health of the vegetation. These are located near the pedestrian and vehicle bridges,
and can be particularly beneficial to the recreational park and the washes, which may eventually
develop vegetation that can be maintained and increase the aesthetic appeal of the area. The cells
are provided power, at least in part, by specialized batteries that convert the vibrations of the
bridges, from passing pedestrians and vehicles, to electricity.
8.0 Conclusion
Due to a number of assumptions, limitations to this preliminary analysis include a lack of
conclusive shear strength values, the margin of error for bearing capacity and the preliminary
nature of the exploratory borings. The depth of the borings is of particular note, as it only
increases the uncertainty of the conditions under which substructures are constructed. However,
the error for the ultimate bearing capacity calculations is not significant because of the adherence
to typical soil factor values, making the computed bearing capacities reasonably accurate for the
purposes of this report. Earth conditions for the site of the proposed Joy Ranch Housing
community are concluded to be manageable for the purposes of land development, although
further testing is still required to refine the design recommendations and improve safety.

10
Appendix A: Schmertmann Analysis
 Footings (Elementary School Building)
o 𝑞 = 8000
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2 , 𝐵 = 5 𝑓𝑡, 𝐻 = 1.5 𝑓𝑡, 𝐷 = 3.5 𝑓𝑡, 𝑃 = 194,375 𝑙𝑏
o Important Geostatic Stresses
 𝜎𝑧𝐷
′
= (114.38
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡3 ) (3.5 𝑓𝑡) = 400.33
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2
 𝜎𝑧𝑝
′
= (114.38
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡3 )(3.5𝑓𝑡 +
5
2
𝑓𝑡) = 686.28
𝑙𝑏
𝑓 𝑡2
o Equivalent Modulus: 𝐸𝑠 = (50,000
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2 )√1 + 12,000(25
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2 ) = 350,000
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2
o Peak Influence Factor: 𝐼𝜖𝑝 = 0.5 + 0.1√
(8,000
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2−343.14
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2)
629 .09
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2
= 0.849
o Depth, Creep and Shape Factors
 𝐶1 = 1 − 0.5 (
(343 .14
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2 )
8,000
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2−343.14
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2
) = 0.974
 𝐶2 = 1 + log(
0.1
0.1
) = 1
 𝐶3 = 1 (value for square footings)
o Settlement: 𝛿 =
((0.978)(1)(1)(8,000
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2−343.14
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2)(0.849 +0.025)(5 𝑓𝑡))
350,000
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2
= 0.091 𝑓𝑡 =
1.09 𝑖𝑛
o Immediate settlement falls within the acceptable range of 0.5 to 2 inches.
 Footing (Pedestrian Bridge, Parcel 10)
o 𝑞 = 1,014
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2 , 𝐵 = 10 𝑓𝑡, 𝐻 = 1.5 𝑓𝑡, 𝐷 = 3.5 𝑓𝑡, 𝑃 = 78,892 𝑙𝑏
5’
3.5’
2.5’
P
2’

11
 𝜎𝑧𝐷
′
= (108.4
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡3 ) (3.5 𝑓𝑡) = 379.4
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2
 𝜎𝑧𝑝
′
= (108.4
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡3 ) (3.5 𝑓𝑡) = 1,463.4
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2 )√1 + (12,000
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2 )(33) = 446,000
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2
(1,255
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2−379.4
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2)
1,463 .4
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2
= 0.566
 𝐶1 = 1 − 0.5 (
(379 .4
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2 )
1,255
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2−379.4
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2
) = 0.783
 𝐶2 = 1
 𝐶3 = 1.03 − 0.3(10) = 0.73
(0.783)(1)(0.73)(1,255
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2 −379.4
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2)(2∗0.566+0.1)(10)
446 ,000
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2
= 0.012 𝑓𝑡 =
0.15 𝑖𝑛
o Immediate settlement falls below the acceptable limit of 2 inches for bridges.
 Footing( Pedestrian Bridge, Parcel 12)
o 𝑞 = 1,014
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2 , 𝐵 = 10 𝑓𝑡, 𝐻 = 1.5 𝑓𝑡, 𝐷 = 3.5 𝑓𝑡, 𝑃 = 78,892 𝑙𝑏
o Though the top soil stratum of this area is has different properties, the bottom of
the footing extends below this layer, making the simplified Schmertmann’s
analysis appropriate.
 𝜎𝑧𝐷
′
= (132.24
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡3 ) (3.5 𝑓𝑡) = 462.84
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2
 𝜎𝑧𝑝
′
= (132.24
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡3 )(3.5𝑓𝑡 + 10𝑓𝑡) = 1,785.24
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2 )√1 + (12,000
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2 )(53) = 686,000
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2
(1,014
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2−462.84
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2)
1,785.24
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2
= 0.556
 𝐶1 = 1 − 0.5 (
(462 .84
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2 )
1,014
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2−462.84
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2
) = 0.580
 𝐶2 = 1
 𝐶3 = 1.03 − 0.3(10) = 0.73

12
(0.580)(1)(0.73)(1,014
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2 −462 .84
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2)(2∗0.556+0.1)(10 𝑓𝑡)
686,000
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2
= 0.006 𝑓𝑡 =
0.068 𝑖𝑛
o Immediate settlement falls below the acceptable limit of 2 inches for bridges.

13
Appendix B: Retaining Wall Calculations
 Cantilever Cut-Off Wall
o The following calculations are applicable to all of the planned retaining walls.
o 𝐻 𝑤 = 14 𝑓𝑡, 𝐵ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 = 7 𝑓𝑡, 𝐵𝑡𝑜𝑒 = 3 𝑓𝑡, 𝐵𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 = 1.5 𝑓𝑡, 𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
0.5 𝑓𝑡, 𝐻 = 16 𝑓𝑡, 𝛾 = 120
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡3 , 𝑐 = 0
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2 , 𝜙 = 30°, 𝛽 = 3°, 𝜇 = 0.45
o Sliding
 Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure: 𝐾𝑎 =
(cos(3)−√cos2(3)−cos2(32))
cos(3)+√cos2(3)−cos2(32)
=
0.322
 Soil Load on Wall (per unit length):
𝑃 𝑎
𝑏
=
(
(132 .24
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡3 )(17𝑓𝑡)2(0.322)
2
)cos(3) = 5,141
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡
 Soil Load (per unit length):
𝑃
𝑏
= 0.5 ∗ (6𝑓𝑡)(1𝑓𝑡 + 2 ∗ 14𝑓𝑡 +
6 tan(3) 𝑓𝑡) (120
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡3 ) = 12,334
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2
 Load from Wall Weight (per unit length):
𝑊 𝑓
𝑏
= (6𝑓𝑡 + 3𝑓𝑡 +
1.5𝑓𝑡)(1.5𝑓𝑡) (150
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡3 ) + (1.5𝑓𝑡)(14𝑓𝑡 + 0.5𝑓𝑡) (150
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡3 ) = 5,850
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡
 Factor of Safety: 𝐹 =
((12 ,334
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2+5,850
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2)(0.45))
4,295
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡2
= 1.59
 This is an acceptable factor of safety, as it falls within the range of
1.5 to 2.
7’3’
14’
1.5’
𝑃𝑎
𝑏
1.5’

14
o Overturning
 𝜙 𝑤 =
2
3
(30°) = 20°
 Loads Contributing to Turning Moments (per unit length) and Arm
Lengths

𝑃 𝑎sin(𝜙 𝑤)
𝑏
= 1,758
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡
, 𝑏 = 𝐵𝑡𝑜𝑒 + 𝐵𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 = 4.5 𝑓𝑡

𝑃 𝑎 cos( 𝜙 𝑤)
𝑏
= 4,830
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡
, 𝑐 =
(0.5𝑓𝑡+15𝑓𝑡+6 tan(3°))
3
= 4.96 𝑓𝑡

𝑊 𝑓
𝑏
= 2,588
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡
, 𝑎 =
6𝑓𝑡+1.5𝑓𝑡+3𝑓𝑡
2
= 5.75 𝑓𝑡

𝑃
𝑏
= 12,334
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡
, 𝑒 = (3𝑓𝑡 + 1.5𝑓𝑡 +
6𝑓𝑡
2
) = 8 𝑓𝑡

𝑊𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚
𝑏
= 3,263
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡
, 𝑑 = (3𝑓𝑡 +
1.5𝑓𝑡
2
) = 3.75 𝑓𝑡
 Factor of Safety: 𝐹 =
((1,758 𝑙𝑏)(4.5𝑓𝑡)+(2,588 𝑙𝑏)(5.75 𝑓𝑡)+(12,334 𝑙𝑏)(8 𝑓𝑡)+(3,263 𝑙𝑏)(3.75𝑓𝑡))
(4,830 𝑙𝑏)(4.96𝑓𝑡)
= 5.58
 This factor of safety is acceptable, well above the required value of
1.5.
 Eccentricity
𝑃𝑎
𝑏
c
𝑊𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚
𝑏
𝑊𝑓
𝑏
𝑃
𝑏
a
d
b
e
𝜙 𝑤
Moment
Reference Point

15

(((1,758 𝑙𝑏)(4.5𝑓𝑡)+(2,588 𝑙𝑏)(5.75 𝑓𝑡)+(12,334 𝑙𝑏)(8 𝑓𝑡)+(3,263 𝑙𝑏)(3.75𝑓𝑡))−(4,830 𝑙𝑏)(4.96𝑓𝑡))
1,758
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡
+2,588
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡
+12,334
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡
+3,263
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡
=
4.77 𝑓𝑡 = 𝑥
 𝑒𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 =
11.5 𝑓𝑡
2
− 4.77 𝑓𝑡 = 0.981

𝐵
6
= 1.92
𝐵
6
> 𝑒𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 => 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒

16
Appendix C: Boring Logs

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

Team #7 Geotechnical Report (2)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Team #7 Geotechnical Report (2)

Similar to Team #7 Geotechnical Report (2) (20)

Team #7 Geotechnical Report (2)